Exemption claim on re-imported goods cannot be denied on a technical omission where remand directed reconsideration.

Re-imported goods were examined for entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. after an earlier appellate remand had directed reconsideration of the alternate notification claim. The lower authority could not refuse the benefit merely because it had not been claimed in the bill of entry, since the remand direction remained binding and the exemption was otherwise legally admissible. The denial was therefore held unsustainable, and the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported re-exported goods were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. dated 16.12.1996 and whether denial of that benefit in de novo proceedings was sustainable.

Analysis: The goods had earlier been exported, re-imported, and initially cleared under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. The earlier appellate order had directed reassessment and consideration of the alternate benefit under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. In the absence of any higher appellate interference with that direction, the lower authority was bound to follow it. The later denial on the ground that the notification was not claimed at the time of filing the bill of entry was held unsustainable. Support was also drawn from the principle that an assessee may seek the appropriate exemption benefit if otherwise admissible, and from prior Tribunal and Supreme Court authority recognising such entitlement.

Conclusion: The denial of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. was set aside and the appellant was held entitled to the benefit of that notification.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier appellate remand has directed consideration of an exemption notification, the lower authority cannot refuse that benefit on a technical objection that it was not claimed at the time of clearance, if the claim is otherwise legally admissible.

---